Mountain Biking takes practically no land

[Jeff Strickland]

A mountain bike trail that is an average of 2ft wide takes less than a quarter acre of land for
every mile in length. A single trail in a square mile of land takes less than 0.0004% of the area,
this leaves 99.9996 of any habitat available for wildlife and plants. Since most open space
(habitat) has growth that is below the level of the handle bars, the trail width in the vast
majority of the areas is less than 2ft wide, leaving even more area for the species that live there.
Given the vast majority of square miles of open space have no trails in them at all, mountain bike
trails (and hiking trails, for that matter) take an insignificant amount of land away from the
habitat and its species.

In spite of the rhetoric often seen here that mountain bikes destroy the land, keep in mind the real
facts as I have spelled them out. A square mile is 640 acres, an acre is 43,560 sq ft. A trail that
is a mile long and 2ft wide takes up 10,560 sq ft, or just under .25 acres. As a percentage of the
space, this trail is 0.000379% (0.2424 / 640 = 0.000379%) of the space. This is just the square mile
that has a trail, there are thousands of square miles with no trails at all, and there are very few
trails that are dedicated to bikes only, the vast majority are shared use trails, and more bike
routes share with automobiles than with pedestrians.

 

[Steve Petree]

However, a mountain bike trail is more than the land it takes up, consider the parking lot at the
trail head, (I know, not very much space, but bear with me), the picnic tables, commodes, and creek
crossings, etc.

The impact to the habitat is not just the trail, but the users as well, including the parking lot,
picnic tables, etc. Just like horses, wildlife doesn't know what a bicyclist is going to do,
careening at them at 15MPH, they're going to be disturbed, I see that every time I go, so your
average squirrel, or deer is going to go "there goes the neighborhood" and skidaddle. Just as a
road is more than the asphalt it is made from, there a impacts from bike trails more than the space
they take up.

That said, I still believe that mountain bikes, and their advocacy, improve land use beyond all of
the other detrimental use, such as development, lumber, & golf courses. Id rather see a bike trail
than a golf course, but I'm not a golfer, I suspect environmentalists would rather see no changes
from people, but the essence of debate is figuring out which compromise best fits everyone's needs,
so I'll accept a golf course over a housing development, and bike trails over golf courses, but I'm
not always going to be happy about the choices others make. (Who am I to tell a land owner to not
make a profit?).

The best that any of can do is continue the debate, sometimes a trail will be made available to
bikes, sometimes a trail will be closed to all. It's best that we ALL decide how public land
will be used.

See you on the trails.. Steve

Jeff Strickland wrote:

>A mountain bike trail that is an average of 2ft wide takes less than a quarter acre of land for
>every mile in length. A single trail in a square mile of land takes less than 0.0004% of the area,
>this leaves 99.9996 of any habitat available for wildlife and plants. Since most open space
>(habitat) has growth that is below the level of the handle bars, the trail width in the vast
>majority of the areas is less than 2ft wide, leaving even more area for the species that live
>there. Given the vast majority of square miles of open space have no trails in them at all,
>mountain bike trails (and hiking trails, for that matter) take an insignificant amount of land away
>from the habitat and its species.
>
>In spite of the rhetoric often seen here that mountain bikes destroy the land, keep in mind the
>real facts as I have spelled them out. A square mile is 640 acres, an acre is 43,560 sq ft. A trail
>that is a mile long and 2ft wide takes up 10,560 sq ft, or just under .25 acres. As a percentage of
>the space, this trail is 0.000379% (0.2424 / 640 = 0.000379%) of the space. This is just the square
>mile that has a trail, there are thousands of square miles with no trails at all, and there are
>very few trails that are dedicated to bikes only, the vast majority are shared use trails, and more
>bike routes share with automobiles than with pedestrians.
>
>

 

[Matt]

The fact that you think it's necessary to go to this length to defend mountain biking is a little
scary. Most reasonable people do not think mountain biking causes any significant damage to the
environment. And those few people that do think it's harmful aren't going to be swayed by something
as simple as logic.

Every action taken by humankind has some impact on the environment. Mountain biking should be pretty
far down on the list of things to be concerned with. People that are focused on being against
mountain bikers need to step back and take a look at the big picture.

Go ride your mountian bike wherever you want (legally) and don't worry about what a few extremeists
that never leave their house think about it. But do make sure to fight these people when they try to
influence our politicians to limit what little freedoms we do have left. The real tragedy is that
vocal minorities can have such influence over the silent majority when it comes to politics.

Matt

"Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> A mountain bike trail that is an average of 2ft wide takes less than a quarter acre of land for
> every mile in length. A single trail in a square mile of land takes less than 0.0004% of the area,
> this leaves 99.9996 of
any
> habitat available for wildlife and plants. Since most open space (habitat) has growth that is
> below the level of the handle bars, the trail width in the vast majority of the areas is less than
> 2ft wide, leaving even more
area
> for the species that live there. Given the vast majority of square miles
of
> open space have no trails in them at all, mountain bike trails (and hiking trails, for that
> matter) take an insignificant amount of land away from
the
> habitat and its species.
>
> In spite of the rhetoric often seen here that mountain bikes destroy the land, keep in mind the
> real facts as I have spelled them out. A square
mile
> is 640 acres, an acre is 43,560 sq ft. A trail that is a mile long and 2ft wide takes up 10,560 sq
> ft, or just under .25 acres. As a percentage of
the
> space, this trail is 0.000379% (0.2424 / 640 = 0.000379%) of the space.
This
> is just the square mile that has a trail, there are thousands of square miles with no trails at
> all, and there are very few trails that are dedicated to bikes only, the vast majority are shared
> use trails, and more bike routes share with automobiles than with pedestrians.

 

[Ctg]

"Steve Petree" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> However, a mountain bike trail is more than the land it takes up, consider the parking lot at the
> trail head, (I know, not very much space, but bear with me), the picnic tables, commodes, and
> creek crossings, etc.
>
> The impact to the habitat is not just the trail, but the users as well, including the parking lot,
> picnic tables, etc. Just like horses, wildlife doesn't know what a bicyclist is going to do,
> careening at them at 15MPH, they're going to be disturbed, I see that every time I go, so your
> average squirrel, or deer is going to go "there goes the neighborhood" and skidaddle.

They'll run off the trail momentarily, they won't think anything about their "neighborhood." If that
logic held up you would never see any animals on any established and used trails. They'll be as
disturbed as they would be with any larger animal they perceive as a possible predator. Disneyesque
ideas about animlas thinking is a bit nutty.

Chris

 

[Peter H]

Steve Petree wrote:

> I suspect environmentalists would rather see no changes from people, ...........

Consider that the environmentalists (?) have already spent many generations bringing changes, nearly
all of them irreversible within our time frame: office buldings, residential subdivisions, shopping
malls, little league ball parks, multi-lane interstate highways, tennis courts, slums, prep schools,
"theme" parks, country clubs..........

Pete H

--
The unspoken word is capital. We can invest it or we can squander it.
M. Twain

 

[Bb]

On Thu, 22 May 2003 00:00:52 GMT, ctg wrote:

> They'll run off the trail momentarily, they won't think anything about their "neighborhood." If
> that logic held up you would never see any animals on any established and used trails. They'll be
> as disturbed as they would be with any larger animal they perceive as a possible predator.
> Disneyesque ideas about animlas thinking is a bit nutty.

Well, not as nutty as Disneyesque ideas of animals "feeling", or "listening to what they
have to say"!

Anyone who's done much mountain biking has observed that animals don't go beserk at the sight of a
bicycle - very much the opposite. They usually just stand there and gawk as we pass (as long as we
don't stop). I've come as close as six feet from a standing deer, and passed chipmunks, squirrels,
and bunnies standing right on the trailside watching me go by. Sometimes they saunter off the trail
so slowly that I have to really hit the brakes to make sure they have enough time to clear off at
such a leisurely pace.

Horses are the exception; they can go beserk at the sight of pretty much anything unexpected. I
lived around those skittish beasts for years, and have seen them blow a mental fuse for all sorts of
reasons. Some are worse than others, of course.

--
-BB- To reply to me, drop the attitude (from my e-mail address, at least)

 

[Gyp]

Jeff Strickland wrote: <eco stuff snipped>

Well said...Its good that you care and are accualy dedicated some thought to your impact on the
environment. Their are plenty of people that don't think about their actions..

I understand that the bigest mountain bike complaint/impact is trail damage. So when the topsoil is
distrurbed and ruts form on slopes heavy rain then causes gullies and soil errosion sets in. Thus
new trails are created along side the old and process repeats.

Saying that all of the trails I ride are monitored and legal and even on these I attempt not to dig
in the rear tyre any more than I have to.

Like most sports there will be the minority that do the damage that spoil it for the rest of us. So
on this basis I can understand when areas of natral beuty are closed off to vehicles etc.

Regards Gyp

 

[Stergios Papada]

Jeff Strickland wrote:
>
snip
> In spite of the rhetoric often seen here that mountain bikes destroy the land, keep in mind the
> real facts as I have spelled them out. A square mile is 640 acres, an acre is 43,560 sq ft. A
> trail that is a mile long and 2ft wide takes up 10,560 sq ft, or just under .25 acres. As a
> percentage of the space, this trail is 0.000379% (0.2424 / 640 = 0.000379%) of the space.
snip

You are off by a factor of 100. .2424/640 = 0.0379%.

Stergios

 

[Jjens]

In rec.backcountry BB <[email protected]> wrote:
> Anyone who's done much mountain biking has observed that animals don't go beserk at the sight of a
> bicycle - very much the opposite. They usually just stand there and gawk as we pass (as long as we
> don't stop). I've come as close as six feet from a standing deer, and passed chipmunks, squirrels,
> and bunnies standing right on the trailside watching me go by. Sometimes they saunter off the
> trail so slowly that I have to really hit the brakes to make sure they have enough time to clear
> off at such a leisurely pace.

Strangely enough, I did have a ground squirrel turn and "attack me" once.

I was going up a slowish fire-road with some friends when we surprised the squirrel. It chose me as
its target, and I watched it dig in its little paws and charge, making these little barking sounds.
I was too surprised and just waited to see what would happen next. When it got about two feet from
my pedals it changed its mind, and reached its little paws out to grab some dirt, made a 90-degree
turn, and ran off.

It was really wierd. (I can still see that little face.)

jjens

 

[Bomba]

jjens wrote:

> Strangely enough, I did have a ground squirrel turn and "attack me" once.
>
> I was going up a slowish fire-road with some friends when we surprised the squirrel. It chose me
> as its target, and I watched it dig in its little paws and charge, making these little barking
> sounds. I was too surprised and just waited to see what would happen next. When it got about two
> feet from my pedals it changed its mind, and reached its little paws out to grab some dirt, made a
> 90-degree turn, and ran off.
>
> It was really wierd. (I can still see that little face.)

I crapped myself last night. I surprised a couple of young deer and they in turn surprised me. First
I knew about it was this young stag charging towards me. Fortunately, about 10 yards away he got his
bearings and charged off in the other direction with his mate.

I've seen the damage deer do to cars, I'm glad he decided not to carry on charging.

--
a.m-b FAQ: http://www.t-online.de/~jharris/ambfaq.htm

b.bmx FAQ: http://www.t-online.de/~jharris/bmx_faq.htm

 

[Fritz M]

"Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote:

> In spite of the rhetoric often seen here that mountain bikes destroy the land

What rhetoric? *Some* of us know how to use killfiles.

RFM
--
To reply, translate domain from l33+ 2p33|< to alpha. 4=a 0=o 3=e +=t

 

[Jeff Strickland]

"Steve Petree" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> However, a mountain bike trail is more than the land it takes up, consider the parking lot at the
> trail head, (I know, not very much space, but bear with me), the picnic tables, commodes, and
> creek crossings, etc.
>
The parking lot at the trail head is insignificant, and would be there to support the other
activities that take place on the trail.

> The impact to the habitat is not just the trail, but the users as well, including the parking lot,
> picnic tables, etc. Just like horses, wildlife doesn't know what a bicyclist is going to do,
> careening at them at 15MPH, they're going to be disturbed, I see that every time I go, so your
> average squirrel, or deer is going to go "there goes the neighborhood" and skidaddle. Just as a
> road is more than the asphalt it is made from, there a impacts from bike trails more than the
> space they take up.
>
"Careening" is such an emotional term. I drive a Jeep, and have seen Big Horn sheep, or deer, or
bears just standing around beside the trails watching us drive by. When we are gone, they resume
whatever they were doing before we got there. We seldom drive around with the motors running at full
tilt, spewing exhaust and kicking up dirt and dust, our normal way of traveling is at speeds much
closer to walking speeds (the guys I hang around with engage in rock crawling, not desert racing --
these are significantly different mindsets) than entering-the-freeway speeds.

> That said, I still believe that mountain bikes, and their advocacy, improve land use beyond all of
> the other detrimental use, such as development, lumber, & golf courses. Id rather see a bike trail
> than a golf course, but I'm not a golfer, I suspect environmentalists would rather see no changes
> from people, but the essence of debate is figuring out which compromise best fits everyone's
> needs, so I'll accept a golf course over a housing development, and bike trails over golf courses,
> but I'm not always going to be happy about the choices others make. (Who am I to tell a land owner
> to not make a profit?).
>

My position exactly; a bike trail is much less of an impact than a golf course or mini mall.

 

[Jeff Strickland]

"Stergios Papadakis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Jeff Strickland wrote:
> >
> snip
> > In spite of the rhetoric often seen here that mountain bikes destroy the land, keep in mind the
> > real facts as I have spelled them out. A square
mile
> > is 640 acres, an acre is 43,560 sq ft. A trail that is a mile long and
2ft
> > wide takes up 10,560 sq ft, or just under .25 acres. As a percentage of
the
> > space, this trail is 0.000379% (0.2424 / 640 = 0.000379%) of the space.
> snip
>
> You are off by a factor of 100. .2424/640 = 0.0379%.
>

You are the one that is off, .242424 / 640 = 0.00037879, 24.24 / 640 = .0379

>
> Stergios

 

[Stergios Papada]

Jeff Strickland wrote:
>
> "Stergios Papadakis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...

> > You are off by a factor of 100. .2424/640 = 0.0379%.
> >
>
> You are the one that is off, .242424 / 640 = 0.00037879, 24.24 / 640 = .0379

What is 1% of 100?

.000379 = .0379%

Stergios

 

[Jeff Strickland]

25 / 100 = 25%, 0.2424 / 640 = 0.000379%

You are the one that is off.

"Stergios Papadakis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Jeff Strickland wrote:
> >
> > "Stergios Papadakis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
>
> > > You are off by a factor of 100. .2424/640 = 0.0379%.
> > >
> >
> > You are the one that is off, .242424 / 640 = 0.00037879, 24.24 / 640 =
.0379
>
>
> What is 1% of 100?
>
> .000379 = .0379%
>
> Stergios

 

[Bob]

"Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> 25 / 100 = 25%, 0.2424 / 640 = 0.000379%
>
> You are the one that is off.
>

I think your calculations don't match. 25/100 = 0.25 but 0.2424 / 640 = .000379. So, you'd have to
multiply by 100 to get 25% and 0.0379%.

--
Bob

 

[Bomba]

Jeff Strickland wrote:
> 25 / 100 = 25%, 0.2424 / 640 = 0.000379%
>
> You are the one that is off.

on basic maths.

25 / 100 = 0.25 .25 x 100 = 25%

.2424 / 640 = 0.000379 .000379 x 100 = 0.0379%

 

[Jeff Strickland]

OK, even still the space taken by a path or trail is insignificant.

"Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > 25 / 100 = 25%, 0.2424 / 640 = 0.000379%
> >
> > You are the one that is off.
> >
>
> I think your calculations don't match. 25/100 = 0.25 but 0.2424 / 640 = .000379. So, you'd have to
> multiply by 100 to get 25% and 0.0379%.
>
> --
> Bob

 

[Bomba]

Andy Chequer wrote:

> Andy Chequer, hey am-b how's it hangin......

"Hallo Dr Andy!"

 

[Andy Chequer]

"bomba" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Andy Chequer wrote:
>
> > Andy Chequer, hey am-b how's it hangin......
>
> "Hallo Dr Andy!"

Ello mate. Ello Rimmer, an'all.

Andy Chequer